United States v. James Robert Mincoff

981 F.2d 1260 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Robert MINCOFF, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-50480. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 5, 1992. * Decided Dec. 23, 1992. Before D.W. NELSON, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 James Robert Mincoff was convicted by a jury of possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (d)(1) and 802(34)(c). Mincoff appeals his conviction on the following grounds: 1) outrageous government conduct; 2) improper admission of evidence; 3) improper jury instructions; 4) insufficient evidence; 5) improper sentencing; and 6) ineffective assistance of counsel. 1 We reject all of the claims and affirm. I. Factual Background 3 Mincoff's arrest was the result of a scheme devised by a drug chemical supplier named Vincent DeVito. DeVito was operating pursuant to a…